Email this article to a friend

Hopefully this is a wake-up call for labor to do more internal organizing, says retired Wisconsin AFL-CIO president David Newby. If we don’t, we’re dead.

The late February snow fell lazily on several thousand Wisconsin union members as they gathered on the steps of the capitol building in Madison to protest what picket signs denounced as “the war on workers.” The scene was a smaller replay of the protest four years ago when tens of thousands assembled to oppose Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s Act 10. Despite a broad, fervent uprising, that act passed and stripped public employees of their collective bargaining rights.

This time, even the protesters saw little hope of defeating the latest attack by Walker and Republican legislators. The deceptively named “right-to-work” law, aimed primarily at private-sector unions, prohibits labor contracts from requiring all employees to pay their share of union dues. While the Right denounces such payments as “forced unionism,” labor says that it’s only fair for all workers to chip in, because they all benefit from the union’s work.

Republican leaders called an “extraordinary session” to address the proposal. The Senate voted 17 to 15 in favor (with only one Republican joining Democrats in opposition). Assembly approval and Walker’s signature quickly followed, to make Wisconsin the twenty-fifth “right to work” state.

As the Badger state was taking another blow to its reputation as a union stronghold, one disgusted union member at the rally shouted: “Walker’s a weasel, not a Badger.”

Ironically, Walker, a right-to-work advocate for more than two decades, said just three years ago that he opposed the legislation even “getting to my desk,” since private-sector unions “overwhelmingly come to the table to be my partner in economic development.” And during his re-election campaign last fall, he promised that right-to-work legislation was not part of his agenda. But in February, Walker changed his tune and pledged to sign such a bill.

Why the change? Perhaps the denials were a stealth tactic to keep union supporters off guard. Perhaps he thought attacking unions again would bolster his entry into the ranks of potential presidential candidates. At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where he came in second in a 2016 presidential straw poll, he said that standing up to thousands of Wisconsin citizens who supported union rights showed how he could stand up to terrorists like ISIS around the world.

The impetus for right-to-work in Wisconsin came from the Republican Right, often with corporate funding. Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, says the state’s chamber of commerce, the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, made it “their top priority, and Walker was their ally.” They were joined by a number of right-wing foundations, including the Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation, whose director was Walker’s campaign co-chair. Most of the players, however, were a familiar national cast of characters. As the Madison-based watchdog group PR Watchreported, the text of the bill came straight from the American Legislative Exchange Council. And Koch-funded think tanks such as the National Right-To-Work Committee (NRTWC) and the Heritage Foundation flew in experts to testify in favor.

These groups are also involved in right-to-work efforts in other states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico, Washington, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Missouri. Meanwhile, in Kentucky and Illinois, where statewide laws are unlikely to pass, union opponents—including Illinois’ new governor, Bruce Rauner—are pursuing county-level right-to-work laws. This new strategy has rightwing groups divided: Heritage supports it, but the NRTWC is skeptical that county-level laws will hold up in court. Still, as of late February, 10 Kentucky counties had approved ordinances and another four had introduced them. It’s not a favorable sign for labor that Democrats account for nearly half of local officials voting for the laws.

History of an anti-worker movement

The right-to-work movement emerged in the South in the 1940s, with Arkansas passing the first law in 1944. The name may have emerged as a conservative rejoinder to workers’ claims for a “right to strike” or as an expression of “the right of contract.” In any case, it was deeply misleading, since it had nothing to do with the right to employment.

Although advocates sell right-to-work laws as promoting jobs and economic growth, the movement has always been ideological, writes Colorado State University professor Raymond Hogler in a new book, The End of American Labor Unions: The Right-to-Work Movement and the Erosion of Collective Bargaining. He explains that the debate over right to work reflects a division of views—largely rooted in the existence of slavery in the South—about basic notions of community, liberty, freedom and property. The political culture of the South emphasized liberty as emancipation of the individual (except, of course, for black slaves) within a strongly hierarchical system, while the culture of the North valued freedom as a self realization of individuals by means of collective action, rooted in communities. “The South doesn’t like unions or collective activity, anything that interferes with the hierarchical world view,” Hogler writes.

After sweeping most of the South and Great Plains states from the late 1940s through the 1970s, the right-to-work movement slowed down until 2012, when it scored victories in two industrial heartland states. After saying he wasn’t interested in passing right to work, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels suddenly signed it into law. Then Michigan labor unions were caught off guard when Gov. Rick Snyder suddenly went back on his word and did the same. Those precedents, combined with many states turning red in the 2012 elections, opened the floodgates for the new multi-state push.

Right-to-work laws have definite effects. A 1987 study of 21 right-to-work states found that the passage of such laws reduced union membership—by 5 to 10 percent in the first five years. As a result, the wealth of corporate shareholders grows—by 2 to 4 percent, according to one study. Apparently, this comes out of workers’ pockets: An Economic Policy Institute study found that in right-to-work states, average wages were about 3.2 percent lower (or $1,500 a year) than in other states.

Yet no studies conclusively demonstrate that right-to-work laws create more jobs or a more vibrant economy. Surveys of both large corporations and small manufacturers about their location decisions have found that right to-work had little to no bearing—more influential factors included highway accessibility and construction costs. And although low-wage, right-to-work states had some success in luring manufacturing to the South in the mid-20th century, today such jobs are likely to head overseas from both the North and the South.

Despite this, Americans tend to say they like right to work. Gallup found last year that while only 53 percent of national respondents approved of unions, 71 percent still favored right-to-work laws, even though they weaken unions. Based on this and other surveys, Americans appear to agree more readily with the argument that no one should be required to pay organizational dues than with the argument that people should not freeload.

Those views, however, can change. In 1978, unions waged a grassroots campaign against a right-to-work referendum in Missouri, flipping the electorate from strong support to a sound defeat. And after a similar mobilization in 2011, Ohioans voted solidly to overturn a state law to outlaw strikes and limit bargaining by public employees.

But in most cases today, the public has no direct voting option, and right-to-work proponents sneak votes in through subterfuge, as in Walker’s pretense that he did not want legislators to raise the issue.

Unions begin to fight back

Yet even in the darkest circumstances, there are alternatives. Unions hope that they can appeal to current public concern with inequality to heighten opposition to right-to-work laws, since they shift power and wealth from workers to the rich. “We’re very focused on income inequality and wage stagnation,” says Geoff Wetrosky, director of the AFLCIO’s national campaign against right to work. “Workers are fed up.”

The problem is that when “fair share” dues requirements are eliminated through right-to-work laws or measures that focus on cutting public workers’ rights, unions often quickly lose members, money and the power to save themselves and protect remaining members. After Wisconsin approved Walker’s Act 10, for example, the union share of the public workforce dropped from 50 percent to 37 percent in the first year (a decline of about 50,000 members). By the end of the second year, public union losses ranged from about 30 percent of teachers to 88 percent of security employees. In just over a year, under Michigan’s right-to-work law, which affected only workers under new and renegotiated contracts, union membership had dropped by 7.5 percent, or 48,000 members.

“Hopefully this is a wake-up call for labor to do more internal organizing,” says retired Wisconsin AFL-CIO president David Newby. “If we don’t, we’re dead.” “Internal organizing” usually includes stepping up efforts to sign up workers who aren’t union members—especially important when dues become voluntary. It also means educating workers more intensively on politics and workplace issues. Newby advocates these steps and more: He argues that unions should also train workers to collectively address problems through direct action rather than grievance procedures, thus freeing staff for building the union and empowering workers. All of this can rebuild solidarity and combat the disillusionment that sets in when union members see their coworkers opting out.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has begun ramping up internal organizing around the country. A six-month campaign last year resulted in almost 100,000 new dues-paying members at already unionized workplaces. AFSCME is now embarking on an internal organizing campaign in Illinois, after Gov. Rauner issued an executive order ending fair share fees for the state’s public-sector unions.

“We are implementing a member-to-member plan to speak personally with every fair share fee payer about the importance of a strong union and to urge them to join,” says Illinois AFSCME Council 31 spokesperson Anders Lindall. “We are also continuously working to inform all members about the true nature of Gov. Rauner’s obsession with wiping out the unions that advocate for the middle class.”

AFSCME has joined with the Illinois AFL-CIO and 25 other unions to challenge the executive order in court, arguing that Rauner overstepped his powers. Rauner, meanwhile, has filed his own suit asking the courts to confirm his view that fair share fees violate workers’ First Amendment rights—perhaps hoping to offer Supreme Court conservatives their best opportunity to overturn the Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, which permitted public-sector fair share fees.

Ultimately, the labor movement needs to mount a philosophical, as well as a legal, defense of collective bargaining as a public good, increasing both democracy and equality. Union defenders need to argue that meaningful freedom of association at work requires having an institution that is democratically run by workers, who can participate as much as they like, but may be required to support it, much as they have to pay taxes.

To do this, unions will need allies. Citizen Action’s Kraig argues that community- based groups such as his own must assume responsibility for rebuilding the labor movement. “Community groups have everything to do with changing opinion,” he says. “Labor now is swimming upstream against legal and public opinion. There’s a battle for the public mind that must take place.”

It is possible that Democrats might finally recognize that it is in their interest to defend unions, given that right-to-work Republicans are often more motivated by political than economic aims—that is, destroying unions to weaken the Democratic Party.

Non-union worker organizations—from OUR Walmart to worker centers to the Fight for 15—could also play a larger role in shifting public opinion. They have more freedom than unions, if less power, and they provide an entry point for engaging both the public and workers unfamiliar with unions.

In the long run, some union organizers believe that unions can regain ground even in right-to-work states with long-range, committed organizing. For example, Metal Trades Department president Ron Ault, a veteran Southern organizer, argues that if unions are steadfast, they can organize anywhere, including the South. “I’ve never seen in my lifetime the pent-up demand and need for labor unions [that I see now],” he says—especially among younger workers. “People want what we have to offer.”

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing in 1976. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. He has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy. He can be reached at davidmoberg@inthesetimes.com.

We all make typos. But there is no excuse for being too stupid to spell words aside from typographical errors.

I am not "great". but I am morally superior to an anti-worker union thug like who you is so opposed to basic worker rights. You come across as a sort of blackshirt or Nazi, to want to crush everyone you disagree with: even the 90% of working people who do not share your views on unions.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-18 08:45:39

Also, I am happy to drive the car I have built in a union-free plant thank you. It means a much higher quality vehicle.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-17 04:55:30

And you insist on smearing and insulting the 90+ % of American workers who say "Union No" and choose to earn their pay honestly.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-16 22:19:51

You are the one who insults people. You smeared good hard working Americans who earn an honest day's wage "slaves"

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-16 22:16:05

No, you are simply a stupid thug because of your lack of knowledge and being in favor of bullying and robbing workers.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-16 22:15:11

At least you aren't bashing workers again. Good for you?

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-16 22:14:21

CRAWL TO A UNION HA!HA!HA! You don't have a clue do you? I just love it when somebody has to repeat what I said to make a point! As lame as the point usually is, it's kind of humorous. Hey,,, I misspelled a word in there,,, let's see you find it!!!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-16 10:19:47

I've read all your other replies to other on here and you have a big problem accepting somebody else knows more about something that you do so you resort to trivial matters like there spelling and other things that have nothing to do with the supject. You just HAVE to point out to others how GREAT you and should anybody dare disagree with you they are subhuman or something like that. Oh yeah,,, I forgot the old "blubbering" remark. Makes as much sense as any other trash you put on here. Don't you have plane you can go jump out of?

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-16 09:52:33

And you probably live in a old mobile home and still drive the same 10 year old car. If you can't do any better than sit there and call names, Like I said,,,go back to school little boy! And I've never been on strike and I've never drawn unemployment ins. You're a real piece of work, you know that?(eye roll)

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-16 09:47:22

I stayed at the same employer for decades and I didn't do it by being lazy or not knowing what I was doing! Ignorance? RAGE!!!! Oh my god, you're a deluded, tortured soul aren't you? You're doing your "blubbering and bellowing" remarks because you don't have enough brain power to think of anything of any importance or any kind of vailed argument to your little "I know everything" attitude. So, you go to name calling and other insults. "When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser! Go away Loser!!! You're still boring me!!!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-16 09:44:09

You have yet to point out one of my things that is "dumb".

You are very anti-worker in all ways.

"Go back to school little boy.Learn something!!!"

It's not possible now. The unions have completely taken over the schools. The union goal of having "teachers" get rich while doing little at all has taken over. But I suppose you hate education and school children as well.

I can tell from your ignorance, rage, and entitlement that you are very bad at what you do. Left to earn a wage in line with the value of your work, you would earn 13 cents an hour. You bellow and blubber incoherently at companies who DARE pay you for what you give them, and call them "greedy". Instead of doing what a decent honest person would do: getting a higher wage by improving their skills and quality of their work.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-15 10:47:21

"The employer wanted to pay slave wages."

Slaves aren't ever paid wages. You show a poor grasp of the English language.

In reality, the fair market (real value) for industrial jobs is between $10 and $24 an hour.

"Good thing you anti union types have Detroit and Flint to go on about."

I am not so much anti-union as I am pro worker. Pro worker choice. If a worker decides to join a union, I support that decision.

You only support workers if they do what you want. And you have a great fear of anyone earning a fair wage and being paid for the value of their work. You are like a fat pig too lazy to get off the couch (i.e. a typical striker... non-worker) who expects to get richer the more lazy they are.

The rest of us gain our wages by actually earning them.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-15 10:44:10

And it's still some of the dumbest rebuttles I've heard. Go back to school little boy.Learn something!!!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-15 10:25:33

So they "forced" them to do that? Yeah right!!! They forced them too. No they didn't. The employer wanted to pay slave wages. Good thing you anti union types have Detroit and Flint to go on about. The Auto industry didn't want to reinvest in their factories in Michigan and other auto plants, so they let other countries build them for them and then went to where they can pay $2 an hour. That's what did in Detroit and Flint! Greed by the Auto makers, not the unions, fair wages is something they want to get away from, that's why the leave. No I'm not babbling,,, I'm just saying the truth and anything honest sounds like babbling to those like you. You even try using the old racist BS!! Go away, you bore me!!! Go babble to some one who'll believe your lame crap!!!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-15 10:18:54

1) Unions force companies to close all the time. I've seen this everywhere. If you want, I can name many, and there are also companies that are still in business, but the unions forced them to close many of their US factories and leave the country. Visit Flint and Detroit sometime. to see what the UAW has done for auto workers and their community.

2) You are babbling, actually. Try sentences that make sense. For one thing, working for and receiving a fair wage is not slavery. The term "slave wages" is entirely invalid. You actually come across as a bit of a racist by equating the "plight" of workers earning a wage for the value of their work with actual slaves. Racist, greedy, lazy, and out of touch. A poor combination. And very anti-worker as well.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-14 22:18:01

"That was also one of the lamest and dumbest rebuttels I've ever had the displesures of reading."

I countered all of your intensely anti-worker "arguments" and that is all you can say. Well, I am glad I struck a nerve.

"we have freedom of religeon here and no employer can force you to join a church"

Forcing someone to join a union is just as bad.

"They are VOTED in, nobody makes anybody vote for for them.

Only sometimes. And rarely. Michigan had the SEIU take over home health care workers after a secret election was held, and only a tiny fraction of home health care workers voted in it.

Besides, the most worker-friendly way is to let each worker choose.

" And if the person that decides what a good job you do and also decide how much you will be paid for doing is the same person you'll never be doing the job good enough"

If you do a good job, you will be paid the worth of it. Your statements are purely false, and you have no idea how anything works. You come across as greedy, wanting to be given free money that you didn't earn by your work.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-14 22:14:08

And no, I'm not voting for Hillary!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-12 10:58:53

That was also one of the lamest and dumbest rebuttels I've ever had the displesures of reading. First of all, we have freedom of religeon here and no employer can force you to join a church. If only 10% of workers want to be in unions there would be no unions because they are all voted on by the employees of the company's they get certified at. They are VOTED in, nobody makes anybody vote for for them. And if the person that decides what a good job you do and also decide how much you will be paid for doing is the same person you'll never be doing the job good enough. And if you don't like it,,, go ahead, go somewhere else, you won't get any better. Bosses always will tell you they can find somebody else. You're very simple minded, you know that? I bet you vote for Trump too!!

1`

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-12 10:57:12

No union has ever forced a company to close! Greed is the only thing that's done that! Greed from not being able to pay slave wages!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-12 10:46:09

Right to work is not an "attack on labor". It is a defense of the rights of workers.""It is even no more anti-union, say, than NOT forcing everyone to join the NRA is "anti-NRA"

"The democratic party is and has been shifting to support the oligarchy in our country since that hillbilly from Arkansas was president"

That's a tinfoil hat myth. The Dems have always pushed toward socialism: more power for workers, less for the people.

"People who attack unions are attacking a fundamental right that we earned through blood-sacrifice, freedom of association"

No, we are attacking these bullying campaign fundraising scams for their abuse of workers.

"majority of union officials have become soft, due to their high salaries"

Now, this is true. Union thugs are now millionaires off of money stolen from workers through "closed shop". They don't have to consider what workers want.

Do you want accountable unions? Pass national right-to-work Then unions would have to work hard to convince workers to join them. Actually serve their interests.

"is going to go down and become a toothless pussycat."

Unions still have plenty of teeth: forcing factories to close and move overseas all the time. The unions are even active in the "$15 Minimum Wage" movement... which will force companies to fire all low-skill workers... anyone whose wage is worth less than $15 an hour. Catastrophic.

Never underestimate the power of the union bosses to steal millions from working people and use it in an unrelenting war against the workers, their rights, and their jobs.

Until we have national right to work. America works best if way say "union no". Most workers say this already.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-11 15:14:21

"No, you're wrong. Sixty five % of non union workers would try to get union representation if it wasn't for the risk of being fired for it! "

But the thing is so many of them WOULD be fired for it, as the union will force the company to close the shop.

"So paying them less is pro worker huh? "

Paying a fair wage is pro-worker, especially since it means the worker will keep their job (since there won't be a union there)

"ON"T GO TO WORK WERE THERE ARE UNION"S!!! Can you understand that?"

No WAY! I can't understand your ridiculous demand that workers join political pressure groups/campaign finance scams when they have NOTHING to do with doing the job.

"That shows me the kind of mentality you have, which is "I have mine so screw you!"

That is your attitude: you side with the 10% of workers who choose to be in a union, while expressing great hatred for the vast majority who reject unions.

My view is very different: I support BOTH sides. If you want to be in a union and work somewhere, fine. If you want to not be in a union and work somewhere, fine.

What you say makes as much sense as an employer requiring you to join the Baptist Church. "Don't want to be a Baptist? Don't work there!"

" And if people that don't want unions can do better themselves against a large rich corporations well good luck with that."

They can if they are good at their job. If you are a lousy worker who would be fired otherwise due to lousy work, then you might a union.

"They'll come crawling to the union later! They always do!"

Less than one in ten American workers crawl to a union.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-11 14:45:20

No, you're wrong. Sixty five % of non union workers would try to get union representation if it wasn't for the risk of being fired for it! So paying them less is pro worker huh? That shows me the kind of mentality you have, which is "I have mine so screw you!" If you don't want to job at union you have total choice in that,,,DON"T GO TO WORK WERE THERE ARE UNION"S!!! Can you understand that? Probably not!!! WhenI started in '82 I was getting $9.25 an hour and paid $14 in union dues. When I retired in '14 I was being paid $26 an hour plus benefits and only paying $42 in union dues. Looks to me the Union earned their keep! Now I retired at 54 with a full pension, paid healthcare, paid off home and money in the bank. So don't the guys I worked with all those years. And it was the union contracts I worked under all those years that helped me with that! Sure as hell couldn't rely on managnent to do anything like that for us. Or anybody like you who seems to think all that is bad for the workers!!! And if people that don't want unions can do better themselves against a large rich corporations well good luck with that. They'll come crawling to the union later! They always do!

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-11 14:08:23

"The workers are the unions"

Wrong. More than 90% of workers reject unions nationwide.

In a union shop, the union is only some of the workers. Pretty much the workers that agree with it. The rest are forced to join it against their will. The unions and workers are a very different thing. That's the reality.

If it hurts the unions in terms of letting workers not have money stolen in "dues", it helps the workers.

"Wages in right to work states are one third of what they are in union states, a lot better benefits too. That's not "pro-worker"."

You are describing this incorrectly. It is very pro worker.

If you want to join a union, fine. But don't bully and rob workers who want nothing to do with unions.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 22:11:40

The workers are the unions, they are not two separate things so if it hurts the unions, it hurts the workers. Wages in right to work states are one third of what they are in union states, a lot better benefits too. That's not "pro-worker".

Posted by frxere on 2016-07-10 20:21:36

I sure hope it does happen. Workers need their rights protected.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 17:44:47

The problem with the Dems is that they are all for power for the ruling elite (the government) and less for the people. Part of this is the very anti-worker views of the Dems: they strongly favor forcing workers into unions against their will.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 17:44:17

As long as they do this, and don't organize for the company to pay workers more than a fair wage. Paying more than a fair wage is unsustainable, and forces factories to close or leave the country. This is how the UAW destroyed the US auto industry.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 17:43:15

Union thugs will threaten you and sometimes even beat you up unless you give in and turn in hundreds of dollars each year to "dues" (which ends up going to political campaigns)

If you are good at your job, you won't need a union. If you are a lazy slob who doesn't want to do a good job at all, and thinks that you should get raises not from doing better work, but by threatening people (or loafing around the house watching TV: "strike"), then unions are for you.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 17:42:24

Republicans haven't pushed for thiss yet, and they wont. "Right to Work" completely protects the right of a worker to join a union and give it as much money as they want. It is very pro-worker, and tips the power from robbing union thugs back toward workers.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 17:40:19

If workers are no longer forced to join unions against their will (due to national Right to Work coming about), unions will actually have to learn to be responsive to workers' needs and serve their interests for once. Or else they won't survive.

Posted by Richard Rahl on 2016-07-10 17:38:27

The attack on labor and the resulting right-to-work legislation is not guided by an attack on the democratic party. The democratic party is and has been shifting to support the oligarchy in our country since that hillbilly from Arkansas was president. The attack on labor is simply to destroy any semblance of collective action by the workers. This goes hand-in-hand with their corporate philosophy of 'watch out for number one', 'it's a dog eat dog world', and' let us, your corporate rulers, take care of you, you don't need no stinking unions'. People who attack unions are attacking a fundamental right that we earned through blood-sacrifice, freedom of association. This is why this term is in the constitution as one of our basic rights we gained in the revolution to become our own country. Then we had to fight our own corporations, who tried to bury collective action by the workers under a shower of bullets, either by the Army, militias, police, or citizen councils. If the unions continue with their 'service model' of unionism (which results in 'business unionism') they then will never gain the lost ground that is happening from this concerted attack on labor, by corporate America, aided and abetted by both parties. A new model, or one that needs dusted off, is for union officials to re-engage with the rank and file, tell the truth about this attack on their families by the enemies of labor, and create the structures that allow more than just the normal 10% to be an active part of the union. This will be a 'sea-change' for most unions, and the desire of these union officials to maintain the 'status-quo' will be enormous. The majority of union officials have become soft, due to their high salaries, and their relationships with the politicians from both parties, and the crawling into bed with their corporate bigwigs they have under contract. So unless the rank and file rebel against their own leadership, this ship we built, called unions, is going to go down and become a toothless pussycat.

Posted by bigbillhayworth on 2015-03-30 09:20:13

I hate to say it, Nodoka, but I'm a union member and I feel the same way. My union has concerns other than the particular issues that I face and they ignore me because I represent a minority within the wider union membership and they know they can - ignore me, that is. It seems to me that the antidote to right to work is more effort by unions to connect with their members and make sure they are truly representing them. I see minimal and I mean minimal effort by local officers in my union to connect with members and find out what their concerns are. I get the argument about free-loading, but as a union member I experience the other side of the argument as well.

Posted by komisarka on 2015-03-28 15:00:57

I have experience with being a member of a big union; the Teamsters, many years ago now. At the time, a right-to-work law would have made me very happy. I happened to work at a tire plant that simply didn't have the full attention or respect of the union bigwigs and the dues we paid were spent on the concerns of our brothers in the high-profile hauling jobs; they routinely got decent contracts while we got short shrift. I was the grievance writer for my plant so I was uniquely positioned to see how unimportant we were to the union. The only way we ever struck was to wildcat to get the union's attention. So -- while I support and applaud the idea of unions and I think they're really, truly, necessary in this new Gilded Age, I also like the idea of the unions having to remember why they exist, who they serve and that ALL their dues paying members deserve the same service. It could wind up being a left handed blessing; painful when it first hits and then in years to come, a recognizable watershed when unions once again became the heroic, working class grounded outfits they were originally.

Posted by Nodoka Kouryuu on 2015-03-21 13:00:52

The economy is the point of attack people should look toward if they want to change worker right's and economic equality. Worker are very vulnerable to neo-liberal and flat earth doctrine; however, consumers have the power to withhold their consumption of products and services. Undermining markets and effecting capital flow is the only viable option left to the American population.

Most economic models presented by American economist feature the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and other factures, but the CPI is where borrowing and lending, speculation and productivity prediction come from. If the American people could effect these engines of the economy with strategic consumerism and reducing consumer output, the ruling class would have to start to pay attention to the population.

You could also apply the Consumer Consent model, as I call it to the government as well. Tax revolts, refusing to pay income taxes, refusal to pay property taxes - This would have to be done in mass, but it would be the most effective way to fight against economic and social injustice, which are linked in so many ways.

Posted by Rich Grisham on 2015-03-21 00:42:33

It's hard to be optimistic. Alito is pretty clearly gunning for an overturn of Abood, and it's increasingly likely that the next combination of a Republican President and Republican-dominated Congress will lead to a National Right-to-Work Law. Hopefully that doesn't happen, but if it does, then unions need to be ready to go the minority union route.

Posted by TheBrett on 2015-03-18 22:58:08

David, your advice to both unions and the Democrats is excellent, but they won't take it. Union leaders worry about who will be the captains of the sinking ship called organized labor. Democrats still worry about pleasing corporate America and competing for the patronage of billionaires.

Posted by mischling2nd on 2015-03-18 21:14:57

At the more dangerous jobs organizing around health and safety can be successful.

Posted by rickrabin on 2015-03-18 10:50:12

What about the idea that right-to-work actually strengthens unions, because they would have to win people over at http://makeyourcase.org/topic/... and other debates, and could no longer rely on the government forcing people to join unions? Wouldn't that change the picture for the fat cat union bosses who get rich off the little guy?

Posted by makeyourcase.org on 2015-03-17 22:17:15

It's been one year since I quit my previous job and i couldn't be happier now... I started doing a job from home, for this company I stumbled upon over internet, few hours every day, and I make much more than i did on my last work... My last month payment was for 9 thousand bucks... Superb thing about this is that i have more free time for my loved ones...

One yr ago I decided to resign from my old work and that decision changed everything for me... I started doing a job online, for this company I stumbled upon on-line, several hours each day, and I make much more than i did on my old work... My paycheck for last month was for Nine thousand dollars... Awesome thing about this gig is the more time i got for my kids...

All my working life as a non-union contractor I tolerated the union threat from BA's and goons who appeared to have bobbed for French fries at some time in their life!! Either join the union or face a picket or better yet the "inflated rat"that would be placed on the job.It just thrills me to see these union idiots getting theirs!!

Posted by Clifford Householder on 2015-03-16 19:00:58

Even if all workers decide to join the union and pay dues, Republicans will just come up with other laws to go against unionizing. They'll start making other laws to limit how many employees are eligable.